According to Obama's "signing
statement", the threat of Al Qaeda to the Security of the Homeland constitutes a
justification for repealing fundamental rights and freedoms, with a stroke of
the pen. The relevant provisions pertaining to civil rights were carefully
esconded in a short section of a 500+ page document.

The controversial
signing statement (see transcript below) is a smokescreen. Obama says he
disagrees with the NDAA but he signs it into law.

"[I have] serious reservations with certain provisions that
regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Obama implements "Police State USA", while acknowledging
that certain provisions of the NDAA (contained in Subtitle
D--Counterterrorism) are unacceptable. If such is the case, he could have either
vetoed the NDAA (H.R. 1540) or sent it back to Congress with his
objections.

The fact of the matter is that both the Executive and the US
Congress are complicit in the drafting of Subtitle D. In this regard, Senator
Carl Levin (D-Mich.) revealed that it was the White House which had asked the
Senate Armed Services Committee "to remove language from the bill that would
have prohibited U.S. citizens’ military detention without due process"

Obama justifies the signing of the NDAA as a means to combating
terrorism, as part of a "counter-terrorism" agenda. But in substance, any
American opposed to the policies of the US government can --under the provisions
of the NDAA-- be labelled a "suspected terrorist" and arrested under military
detention. Already in 2004, Homeland Security defined several categories of
potential "conspirators" or "suspected terrorists" including "foreign
[Islamic] terrorists", "domestic radical groups",
[antiwar and civil rights groups], "disgruntled employees"
[labor and union activists] and "state sponsored adversaries" ["rogue states",
"unstable nations"]. The unspoken objective in an era of war and social crisis
is to repress all forms of domestic protest and dissent.

So much for the changey, huh? Barack is so full of it. He and Michelle need to go back to Chicago already. I've had it with him and all of his crap.

He is Bush. He is worse than Bush. We thought nothing could be worse than Bush and then the country met Barack.

His grandmother is so lucky not to see what her bastard grandson has done to this country.

Go read Ruth's "That idiot Naomi Wolf." Then wonder where the apology to America is from all the loons who pimped Barack in 2008?

Friday, January 6, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, denial that Barack
has responsibility continues, the US is not going to support Tareq al-Hashemi,
who got punished for Iraq coverage (and who didn't), and more.

Let's start with David Shorr. He's not interested in honesty, he's not
interested in facts. If you can hold your nose, click on the link and sink into the spin and
ignorance. He doesn't see how Barack Obama "owns" what happens in Iraq. He
doesn't see it because he can't admit the truth. I haven't read Frederick Kagan
and Kimberly Kagan's column, I have no interest in reading it. I have even less
interest in reading Steve Clemons. I did read Peter Feaver's piece -- awhile back. (We
highlighted it in the December 27th snapshot.)

I'm not in the mood to pretend Shorr's an honest broker, so we'll dismiss
with him quickly. Feaver argued that Barack also owns the war (owns it with
Bush). Shorr has a problem with that. We'll let Shorr's own words betray
him:

Feaver cries foul on the attempt he sees by Obama supporters to
give him full credit for anything positive in Iraq and saddle President Bush
with everything negative. Well, what is the Obama Administration claiming to
have done? President Obama claims credit for extricating American forces from
nearly nine years of military involvement there. By the way, can I pause for a
moment to say how absurd it is to talk about a hasty exit after nine
years?!?

Wow. Well I'm convinced. Barack's a saint, a hero and pees rainbows. In
Shorr's mouth. The rest of the world, however, may note that Shorr claims the
Iraq War lasted nine years. No, March 2003 is when it officially started. So
let's go with the eight years plus. (Facts are so hard for con artists.) So
Barack deserves credit because he ended this eight year war?

Bush started and Bush ran it for eight years and just last month, Barack
ended it. Thank goodness Barack Obama was sworn in as president in December
2011 or else the US might still be -- What's that?

Oh, that's right. Barack wasn't just sworn in. He was sworn in back in
January of 2009. A few weeks short of three years he pretends he ended the war
and occupation (he didn't end it). But he continued it, despite campaign
promises. And he wanted to continue the US military's strong presence even
longer. The "hasty exit" line? Again? We just called out Media Matters distorting/lying
about this. But, I guess, when independent thought is beyond your
capabilities, all you can do is repeat talking points.

The "hasty exit" -- as presented by members of Congress -- refers to the
fact that in October when Barack ignores the Defense Dept's legal opinion and
goes with the State Dept's legal opinion (I don't believe the idiot Shorr is
even aware that there were legal opinions) and declares (that phase of) the
talks over, that period from the last of October through December, is what they
call the hasty exit. Liars and whores can't make solid arguments so they have
to lie. Barack has not ended the war and occupation. But let's pretend for a
moment that he has. Was he elected in 2008 with the mandate to follow Bush's
actions? To continue the Iraq War for three more years? No, he wasn't. He was
voted into office to end the Iraq War. And during those three years (2009, 2010
and 2011), he repeatedly made one mistake after another. December 13 on To The Point (KCRW), Warren
Oleny spoke with former Iraqi Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi. Excerpt.

Warren Oleny: Is there anything the Obama administration should be
doing differently from what it is?

Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi: Well, I mean, that's hard to say
because obviously it's influence is somewhat waning. The critical mistake the
Obama administration made occurred last year when it threw its entire diplomatic
weight behind supporting Nouri al-Maliki notwithstanding these very worrisome
signs which were already in place in 2009 and 2010. The administration lobbied
hard both internally in Iraq and throughout the region to have Nouri al-Maliki
get a second term -- which he has done. Right now, the betting there's some
question among Iraq experts whether we'll ever have a set of elections in Iraq
worthy of the name. I mean, you can almost get odds, a la Las Vegas, on that
among Iraq experts. It's a very worrisome thing. What can they do in the
future? Well I suppose it would be helpful, it would be useful, if we stopped
hearing this sort of Happy Talk coming from the administration -- whether
its Jim Jeffreys in Baghdad, the US Ambassador or whether it's the president
himself or other cabinet officers. We're getting a lot of Happy Talk, we're
getting a lot of Happy Talk from the Pentagon about how professional the Iraqi
Army is when, in fact, the Iraqi Army Chief of Staff himself has said it's going
to take another ten years before the Iraqi Army can secure the borders. So it
would help, at least, if we would stop hearing this sort of Pollyanna-ish -- if
that's a word -- exclamations from the administration about how swimmingly
things are going in Iraq and had a little more truth told in public, that would
be a very big help to begin with.

We're opposed to the illegal (and ongoing) Iraq War. We always have been.
I don't need to distort what someone from the other side says or does to make my
argument (see last night's entry). Let's dispense with David Shorr by
noting he hero worshipped Daniel Schorr. Schorr loved
to lie that he was fired from CBS News because of his integrity in ensuring that
a Congressional report was printed. No, he was fired for lying. He was fired
for lying and trying to get someone else in trouble. As Ava
and I noted in "Let's Kill Helen!" (our look at the disgusting
trolls attacking Helen Thomas):

Oh my goodness, Helen's anti-war! Strip her of her American
citizenship! Truly, that must be a huge offense to Alicia since she likens it to
anti-semitism. Can you get more stupid than Alicia Shepard?Others may not be
able to, but she surely can. And did. No reporter for CBS would get away with
that, Alicia wanted to insist. And she follows that up by telling Aimee that age
can't be to blame because "Dan Schorr" is 91 and he works for NPR.He does,
she's right.But he doesn't work for CBS, does he?Nor can he.Yeah,
we'll go there.Daniel Schorr was fired from CBS. He and his supporters (who
funded a year long travel circuit for Danny after his firing) insisted he was
fired for doing his job. That is and was a lie. Daniel Schorr was not fired for
being a defender of freedom.Most people are aware of the Church Committee
which investigated governmental abuses. The Pike Committee came immediately
after, doing the same sort of work, and they wrote a report. They then decided
not to issue it. Schorr, in his capacity as a CBS reporter, had a copy of the
report. CBS was weighing whether or not to report on the now killed report.
Schorr has often (not always) maintained that a decision was made to kill the
report and that's why he acted. That's not true. Either he's lying or he was out
of the loop. CBS was still deciding. Schorr took the report to The Village Voice which published it.That
could have been the end of it for CBS News because they retained their copy
(Schorr had photocopied it and given the photocopies to the weekly). There was
an internal investigation at CBS to determine whether or not someone at CBS
leaked the report to The Village Voice.
Had Schorr kept his mouth shut, the investigation would have been as half-assed
as every other internal investigation CBS News conducts. But Schorr couldn't
keep his mouth shut.This is why he was fired, this is why he will never work
for CBS again. When asked, as all who had access to the report were, if he had
given it to anyone, Schorr didn't stick to "no comment" or a lie that he didn't
do anything.No, instead Schorr chose to finger Lesley Stahl. Schorr told the
investigators that The Village Voice
published the report (which they knew) and Lesley was dating Aaron Latham
(who worked for The Voice) so it was
most likely that Lesley Stahl handed over the report to the weekly.Schorr
was not fired for leaking the report. He was fired for lying and for trying to
blame someone he knew was innocent.Think for just a moment what could have
happened if Schorr had gotten away with that: Lesley Stahl's career would have
been over -- at least at CBS though probably no other network would touch her if
they feared she'd take their stories elsewhere. Aaron Latham (a notable
journalist in his own right) would have been outraged that Lesley lost her job
because she was dating him. Knowing Aaron, he would have made it his life's
purpose to find out who falsely accused Lesley and prove that liar wrong. If
he'd been successful, it might have been a messy media moment and then life
would have continued. If not? Most likely, Lesley would try to move on from it
and Aaron would want to remain in the role of protector/enforcer. Meaning it
wouldn't have just effected her professional life, which was bad enough, if
would have changed her entire life. Lesley and Aaron married years ago and have
had one of the few enduring marriages in the journalistic community. Lesley
could have lost everything as a result of Daniel Schorr's lies. He was prepared
to destroy someone professionally and personally.

In June 2010, while he was still alive, Ava and I were telling the truth
about the dishonest and corrupt Daniel Schorr. A month later, he died and there
was David Shorr holding him up as a model. That says everything you need to know
about the dishonest and uninformed David Shorr. We're done with David
Shorr.

In the real world, Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) observes,
"And as we noted here last month, the American war crime in
Iraq just keeps rolling on. This week saw yet another spate of mass slaughter in yet
another series of bombings in the virulent sectarian warfare which was spawned,
set loose, empowered and fomented by the invaders, who very deliberately -- with
malice aforethought -- divided their new 'Iraqi' government along strict
sectarian lines, arming and paying death squads and militias on both sides of
the Sunni-Shia divide to rip each other -- and Iraqi society -- to pieces. The
mass murder this week is a direct result and a direct responsibility of the
Americans who instigated, carried out, supported -- and praise -- the
'extraordinary achievement' of this endless atrocity. 'Nine years in the
making,' yes -- and still going strong!" From the right-wing, we'll note Sheldon Richman (Reason -- link is text and
audio):

Obama will campaign on how he ended the war -- which began not in
2003 but in 1991; the U.S. government tormented the Iraqi people for 20
years! -- and conservatives will attack him for it. Both sides will
conveniently forget that (1) the U.S. government was obligated to leave on Dec.
31, 2011, under an agreement signed by Bush, and (2) Obama tried his damnedest
to get the Iraqi leaders to ask the U.S. military to stay. (Contrary to claims,
not all troops have left.)

And let's be clear: An exit from Iraq hardly constitutes an exit
from the Middle East. The troops moved down the road to Kuwait, "repostured" for
future use.

Meanwhile, sabers are being rattled in the direction of Iran and
Syria, where covert warfare is already being waged.

Chris Hedges: Well we had a little dispute oversomething called the
Iraq War. And I'd spent a lot of my life, not only, of course in the Middle
East, but in Iraq. I understood like most Arabists that the arguments used to
justify the invasion-occupation of Iraq were non-reality based. They weren't --
This is not a political discussion. It's the idea that we would be greeted as
liberators and there wouldn't be an insurgency, that democracy would be
implanted in Baghdad and emanate outwards across the Middle East, that --
remember? -- the oil would pay for the reconstruction. I mean these were just
spun by people who had no idea what they were talking about. But to get up and
say that, despite the wealth of experience that I had within the region and
within Iraq itself became deeply polarizing. And I gave a commencement address
-- I'd been saying it, but it came to sort of a head when I gave a commencement
address at Rockford College [text of speech, video of speech with a link to other
parts of speech on the right) where I was booed off o the stage, had my
microphone cut, people stood up and started shouting things against me. At one
point, they stood up and sang "God Bless America." I was actually escorted off
the platform before the rewarding of diplomas since they didn't want any sort of
fracas by close contact with students. And this got picked up by Fox and
sort-of trash talk media -- which looped it, hour after hour. And the New
York Times responded by giving me a formal written reprimand. Now we were
Guild, at the Times, which means we were unionized and the process is
you give the employee a written reprimand and the next time they're fired. So I
faced a difficult choice which is that I would have to in essence muzzle myself
in service of my career. But, you know, on a fundemantal level, I was very close
to my dad. He was a great minister and an activist in the Civil Rights
Movement, the anti-war movement, the gay rights movement -- his brother who was
gay -- and he was very outspoken in support of gay rights. You know I realized
that point to do so would be to betray my father. And I wasn't going to do that
so I left the paper.

It's interesting. You could go on TV and -- reporter or columnist for the
New York Times -- advocate for the war -- as many did, before it
started and after it started -- and you would not get a written reprimand. But
speak out against the war and suddenly there was a big problem. That goes to
the huge problems with the US press. If you repeat the government's lies --
even if you know they're lies -- as reality and truth, you don't get into
trouble. Even whent he lies are exposed, even when it's known, for example,
that you helped the Reagan administration with Iran-Contra although you were a
TV journalist. You're not punished. But if you question the government, if you
criticize it, you have an "opinion." And you may have violated your outlet's
code. This despite the fact that skepticism is supposed to be the hallmark of
journalism.

Many were punished for opposing the Iraq War -- Henry Noor (San
Francisco Chronicle) and Phil Donahue (MSNBC) are two more. But the only
one who was punished from the other side is scapegoat Judith Miller. The
New York Times let her go because (a) her image and (b) their own
embarrassment. Her reports don't stand up. Was Judith also an editor? Was she
the publisher? Why was she the only one at the paper who was let go? Judith
didn't host Meet The Press on NBC or any of the Sunday chat shows that
sold the illegal war (often with Miller as a guest). None of those people were
fired from their jobs. Judith was a guest on Oprah's daytime talk show when
Oprah wanted to sell the upcoming illegal war and Oprah even snapped on TV at an
audience member who dared to questions the dubious claims presented as fact.
Oprah lost nothing.

Judith Miller's reporting doesn't stand up. She was wrong. She was a
lousy reporter. If you ignore that she commandeered a US military unit while
she was in Iraq and used them to go find WMD (they found nothing), you could
call her a liar. (Clearly she was tricked or allowed herself to be tricke by
the sources she was too cozy with.)

But Judith Miller didn't work at the Washington Post or the
Los Angeles Times or any other newspaper. And Judith Miller hosted no
MSNBC, CNN or Fox News program. And Judith Miller anchored no broadcast
network's evening news. And Judith Miller didn't host PBS' Washington
Week or The NewsHour. So why was she the only one -- out of all
those fools, liars and worse?

Because, as a woman, she was a lightening rod in a way that a man can never
be. (Bash the bitch is the American pastime, as Ava and I
noted.) And so a lot of men (and less prominent women) kept their heads
down and played dumb, just glad to have Judith Miller punished for all of their
journalistic sins.

On national, state and local levels around the country, people were fired
for being skeptical and/or against the impending war. And the only one fired
who cheerleaded the war was Judith Miller? Imagine how different today would be
if those cheerleading war -- and not the Dixie Chicks -- had been the ones to lose their media access,
had been the ones dropped by various media outlets. But opposing war was
controversial. Blindly going along wasn't. Because it's never a crime in US
journalism to parrot and applaud the US government -- especially the White
House.

(And I'm not calling for the censorship of the War Hawks or anyone else --
let opinions compete in the public square. But I am attempting to
underscore that they had access to the media and amplification while those who
were skeptical or flat out against the Iraq War were shut out by the media.)

After yesterday's string of bombings across Iraq, today would have to be
(comparatively) more peaceful. This being Iraq, that doesn't mean the violence
stopped. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN)
reports, "At least three explosions struck Friday near Baghdad's
Green Zone, where a parade to make Iraq's Army Day was taking place, according
to witnesses." Reuters notes that there was also a
Baghdad mortar attack which left three people injured, a Baghdad roadside
bombing which left five people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing claimed
1 life and left seven people injured, a third Baghdad roadsie bombing claimed 1
life and left five more people injured and a Balad Ruz roadside bombing claimed
1 life. That's 3 dead and twenty injured. Of yesterday's violence, Dan Morse (Washington Post) observes, "At
least 72 people were killed Thursday in a series of attacks on Shiites in Iraq,
marking the deadliest day since U.S. troops withdrew last month and raising new
worries about the country's sharp sectarian divisions."

Readout of the Vice President's Call with
Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey

In the context of close U.S.-Turkish
consultation on matters of mutual interest, Vice President Biden and Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed regional issues, including political
developments in Iraq, by telephone today. Following up on their conversation
during the Vice President's trip to Turkey in December, the two leaders agreed
on the need to advance security, support the rule of law and encourage democracy
in the region. They agreed that our two governments would remain in regular
contact on these issues.

Hurriyet Daily News adds that "Erdogan
warned efforts expended so far to protect Iraq's territorial intergrity and
stability would become meaningless if Iraq drifted away from democratic
culture." Nouri al-Maliki's attempt at seizing further power has resulted in
his swearing out a warrant against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. Former CIA
Director (2006 - 2009) Michael V. Hayden offered this summary at CNN of
Iraq post Status Of Forces Agreement:

With that agreement unextended and now expired,
al-Maliki appears to be acting out the darkest shadows of his own past. Over the
last months, he has reneged on a power-sharing agreement with Sunnis in several
key ministries, arrested hundreds of suspected Baathists (read Sunni
oppositionists) and -- as the last American troops were leaving Iraq and fresh
from an audience in the Oval Office -- he has now ordered the arrest of his own
Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, for
alleged "terrorism."

Along with all of this, al Qaeda in Iraq greeted
the U.S. withdrawal with a series of deadly bombings against largely Shiite
targets. Al Qaeda was always expected to take advantage of the "seam" created by
the handoff of counterterrorism operations from American to Iraqi control, but
now even a badly weakened al Qaeda can exploit the sense of Sunni vulnerability
that al-Maliki's actions have created.

The situation may yet be salvaged. America is not
without tools. Ambassador Jim Jeffrey cut short his holiday home leave to return
to Iraq and, as he has in the past, he will no doubt use his considerable skills
in an attempt to defuse the situation. But the ambassador will have fewer tools
at his disposal.

But is James Jeffrey able to address all the issues? No. And he wouldn't
if he could. The US government has repeatedly went for the 'big' issue. Which,
under Bush since 2006 or Barack since he was sworn in, has always translated as:
Protect Nouri and his position. That's why Barack was able to ignore the
targeting of Iraq's LGBT community even with the US Congress calling it out.
That's why Barack was able to ignore Nouri attacking protesters during the
so-called "Arab Spring." February 25th, Nouri's forces were attaking protesters
and journalists. This continued week after week. Human Rights Watch covered
this repeatedly. Here's Human Rights Watch from June 2nd:

On May 28, soldiers in four Humvees and two other unmarked vehicles
approached the offices of the human rights group Where Are My Rights in
Baghdad's Bab al Mu'adham neighborhood, as members met with fellow protest
organizers from the February 25 Group. Members of both groups told Human Rights
Watch that soldiers raided the building with guns drawn, took away 13 activists
in handcuffs and blindfolds, and confiscated mobile phones, computers and
documents.

One detained activist who was released on May 29 told Human
Rights Watch that during the raid a commanding officer introduced himself as
"from Brigade 43"of the army's 11th Division and said another officer
was "from Baghdad Operation Command."

"They did not show any arrest
warrants and did not tell us why we were being arrested," this activist said:

A female activist complained and asked to see warrants, and
they told her to "shut up and get in the car." They blindfolded and handcuffed
us, and while they were doing this, they asked, "Why are you having these
meetings? Do you really think you can bring down the government?" And they asked
who was supporting us.

The activist said that the army took the people it arrested to a
detention facility at Division 11 headquarters, where they were interrogated
both as a group and individually. "Once we were there, they hit us with their
hands in the face, neck, chest, and arms while we were still blindfolded," the
activist said. "They kicked us everywhere they could reach. They did not use
batons on me, and they talked to each other about not leaving marks or bruises
on us."

The released activist and several members of both organizations
said security forces are still holding nine of the activists and have released
four without any charges. "I asked what crimes we had committed, and asked again
about arrest warrants," said the released activist. "They never answered either
question."

But that was never anything Barack condemned. Nouri becomes prime minister
in 2006. Was there a year in there -- 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 --
when Nouri wasn't getting exposed for running another secret prison? And they
tortured in those prisons. And yet when Nouri's slate came in second in the
2010 elections -- when Iraqis chose Iraqiya for first place and when that meant,
per the Constitution, that Iraqiya had first crack at forming a government --
the White House refused to stand up for the will of the Iraqi people or for the
Iraq Constitution or for democracy. They backed thug
Nouri.

So Iraqiya would have to be very foolish to think that this is the time
that the US finally breaks with Nouri and comes to the rescue of Tareq
al-Hashemi, let alone the Iraqi people. And commentators are noting that James
Jeffrey isn't doing a damn thing to help al-Hashemi. Northsum32 (All Voices) writes:

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey said: "There is a serious
effort by the Iraqi judiciary to have a free and fair and just investigation,"
"It seems a lot of care is being taken at this point to maintain judicial
independence and to have a very broad investigation." These remarks give support
to Maliki in his attempt to discredit Hashemi and portray him as a
terrorist.

John Glaser (Antiwar.com) observes, "The
U.S. ambassador to Iraq has expressed approval of Prime Minister Nouri al
Maliki's quest to detain Iraq's vice president on terrorism charges, despite
almost everyone else recognizing it as part of a troubling pattern of
consolidating dictatorial power." Again, Iraqiya would have to be very stupid
at this late date to think the US government was going to help al-Hashemi when
they have repeatedly backed Nouri over and over. Despite the fact that Nouri's
a thug. Despite the fact that I can list five prominent members of the
administration who have described him as that. Despite the fact that I can name
more Democratic Senators who describe him as a thug than I can name Democratic
Senators who don't.

Al Rafidayn reports al-Hashemi has
opened an office in the KRG. In a statement, al-Hashemi noted that his new
office was in Sulaymaniyah and that it was temporary. He also called for a stop
to the raids and harassment on his home and offices in Baghdad as well as the
homes of his staff. Two women who work for him were recently detained with no
explanation provided to them. On al-Hashemi, Al
Mada reports that Parliament has rejected a request to
supervise the investigation of al-Hashemi noting that such an action is beyond
the scope of their legal duties. The paper also notes that rumors
that he will be going to Jordan have been denied by Jordanian officials. Rakan
al-Majali, government spokesperson, states no request from al-Hashemi has been
received.

Again, Nouri's political slate is State of Law. al-Hashemi is
currently a house guest of Iraq's President Jalal Talabani. Earlier this week,
the Kurdish Alliance staged a walkout (Tuesday) during a session of Parliament
to register their offense over State of Law MP Hussein al-Asadi calling Talabani
(who is Kurdish) a "terrorist.' Al Mada
reports that al-Asadi delivered a formal apology and has
stated he will travel to Sulaimaniyah to apologize to Talabani in
person.

Talabani has called for a national conference among the political blocs to
address the political crisis. Alsumaria TV reports on "observers"
believing Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc not attending (this was announced over the
holiday weekend) could cause a problem and some think the objection is part of a
larger issue with claims that the National Alliance wants the list of invitees
narrowed while Iraqiya and the Kurdistan Alliance want the conference to be open
to various political actors. Alsumaria also notes that Talabani
met with Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi in Sulaimaniya and Talabani and Allawi
remain committed to a national conference to "dismantle" the political crisis.
Aswat al-Iraq covers another
meet-up:

Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani
discussed with Higher Islamic Council leading member Adel Abdul Mehdi ways to
deal with the present crisis in the country and the necessity to all parties'
agreement on a national projects and the implementation of previous
agreements.Barzani, in a statement,
copy received by Aswat al-Iraq, stressed the importance of abiding by the real
partnership.The statement added that
both sides stressed that all political parties should agree on a national
project, implement previous agreements and solve the present crisis to create a
state of stability in the country.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was the
Shi'ite Vice President of Iraq in Nouri's first term. In the second term, he was
one of two Vice Presidents originally (himself and Tareq al-Hashemi) and then
there were three vice presidents. He turned in his resignation at the end of May
and Talabani accepted it formally in June. (Since then, Iraq has only had two
vice presidents.) Mahdi has long wanted to be prime minister. He has had the
support in that from various international oil corporations. Like most rulers in
Iraq (excepting the KRG), Mahdi is an exile. He left Iraq in 1969.

When
he stepped down as vice president, he did so with a letter lamenting government
excess. The letter and the move was seen by some insiders as Mahdi setting
himself up for a potential challenge to Nouri.

We need to wrap up. We've got two things. Partner Hub will be hosting a
live online discussion with Angelina Jolie Thursday (January 12) starting at
8:00 pm EST (7:00 pm Central, 5:00 pm PST). Angelina is an Academy Award
winning actress and, of course, now a film director with her upcoming In The Land of Blood and Honey. She also wrote the
screenplay. What impressed me (I saw at the end of last month) the most was
just how strong Angelina's visual storytelling is. She's a gifted director
right out of the box. Many sites will be taking part in the discussion (we
won't -- it was a nice invitation but Thursday next week is a hard one and
Friday's a nightmare in terms of my schedule). We wil, however, gladly note any
sites that are taking part. As noted here before when I've felt the need to
defend Angelina from some stupid attack (usually when some reporter -- Leila
Fadel, I'm thinking of you especially), I've known Angelina since she was a
little girl. (I am much older than Angelina. I was not a little girl, I was an
adult.) She's directed an amazing movie and she's got the visual gift a
director needs, it's there in transitions from scene to scene, it's their in
telling moments. She should be really proud of herself and proud of her film.
And the last word goes to the Feminist Majority Foundation as they address the change in the
FBI's legal definition of rape:

"Updating the FBI Uniform Crime Report definition of rape is a
big win for women," said Eleanor Smeal, president of Feminist Majority
Foundation. "We appreciate the support for this change from the Obama
Administration, led by Vice President Joe Biden and by Lynn Rosenthal, White
House Advisor on Violence Against Women, and Hon. Susan B. Carbon, director of
the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice, as well as
the FBI." The White House today announced that FBI Director Robert Mueller has
approved the change recommended by several committees of the FBI's Criminal
Justice Information Service.

"With a modern, broader definition, FBI
Uniform Crime Report statistics will finally show the true breadth of this
violence that affects so many women's lives. Women's groups will work to ensure
that this more accurate and complete data will lead to increased resources to
combat and reduce the incidence of rape," continued Smeal.

The "Rape is
Rape" campaign, a massive grassroots feminist activism effort launched by the
Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, generated over 160,000 emails to
the FBI and the Department of Justice urging this change. For over a decade the
Pennsylvania-based Women's Law Project (WLP) had pursued the change.
"Ultimately, accurate data is a fundamental starting point to improving police
response to sex crimes and improved practice should lead to increased victim
confidence in police and reporting," said Carol E. Tracy, WLP Executive
Director.

The old definition, adopted over 80 years ago, had been
extensively criticized for leading to widespread underreporting of rape. Defined
as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will," it
excluded rapes involving forced anal sex and/or oral sex, rape with an object
(even if serious injuries resulted) and rapes of men, and was interpreted by
many police jurisdictions to exclude rapes where the victim was incapacitated by
drugs or alcohol, or otherwise unable to give consent. The old rape definition
excluded many rapes against women and all against men.

The new
definition, as it appears on the FBI website, is: "Penetration, no matter how
slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration
by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the
victim."

"This is a major policy change and will dramatically impact the
way rape is tracked and reported nationwide," said Kim Gandy, Vice President and
General Counsel of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It is a great day for
women and law enforcement because the police can more accurately know what is
going on as far as the crime of rape in their communities," observed Margaret
Moore, Director of the National Center for Women and Policing of the Feminist
Majority Foundation.

Available for interview on the change in
definition, its significance and the campaign leading up to it are Feminist
Majority Foundation President/Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal, FMF Vice
President and General Counsel Kim Gandy, Executive Editor of Ms. Katherine
Spillar, Women's Law Project Executive Director Carol E. Tracy and Margaret
Moore, director of the National Center for Women and Policing, a division of the
Feminist Majority Foundation.

About Me

I'm a black working mother. I love to laugh and between work and raising kids, I need a good laugh. I'm also a community member of The Common Ills. Shout outs to any Common Ills community members stopping by. Big shout out to C.I. for all the help getting this started. I am not married to Thomas Friedman, credit me with better taste, please. This site is a parody.